This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Trial Court passed in the interlocutory application filed by the defendant under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, for leave to issue interrogatories for discovery of facts.
2.In the said application, the plaintiff/respondent has filed counter furnishing certain information. Based on the petition and counter, the Trial Court has passed the following order:-
''This court carefully considered the case of the both parties and perused the records. It appears from the records when the suit was posted for trial on 12.09.2016, this petition was filed by the petitioner. Moreover, it appears from the ingredients of O.11 R.1 of Civil Procedure Code it is clear that the petitioner would have obtained leave of this court before seeking the interrogatories. But in this case the petitioner had filed the petition directly seeking interrogatories from the respondent without seeking leave of the court. Likewise the respondent failed to furnish the interrogatories in the form No.2 in Appendix C, such such variations as circumstances may require as contemplated under O.11 R.4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Moreover the respondent furnished the answer to the interrogatories in the form of affidavit in form No.3 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require as contemplated under O.11 R.9 of Civil Procedure Code. Thus it is clear that both parties are failed to adhere the procedure prescribed for seeking the reply for the interrogatories and filing the reply for the interrogatories.''
3.After referring the judgments in Janaki Ballav vs. Bennett Coleman and Co.Limited and others, reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 216 and Laxmibai(Dead) through Lrs and another vs. Bhagwantbuva(Dead) through Lrs and others, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 97 the Trial Court has concluded as follows:-
''Therefore in view of the dictum laid down in the above said judgment this court is inclined to excuse the irregularity committed by the petitioner in filing the petition seeking interrogatories from the respondent. Moreover the respondent also filed reply for the interrogatories. The counsel for the respondent also expressed no objection to condone the irregularities committed by the both parties. While it is so this court feels that in the interest of justice the reply for the interrogatories to be recorded given liberty to the both parties raised their legal points within four corners of law during the course of trial.''
4.Now, by way of revision petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution, the order of the Trial Court is challenged on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff has given a vague and evasive answer which does not satisfy the requirement of Order 11 CPC and therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is vague and it has truncated the process contemplated under Order 11. The reasoning given by the lower Court is not tenable and amounts to illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
5.Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
6.From the records, this Court finds that the revision petitioner has taken out an application with certain interrogatories to be answered by the respondent/plaintiff by an affidavit and for that purpose, he has sought leave of the Court to deliver the said interrogatories for the examination of the respondent/plaintiff and to file affidavit within the time specified in the said order. In response to the application filed on 23.09.2016, the respondent/plaintiff has filed his objection with answers to certain interrogatories.
7.The Trial Court has pointed out that even before leave could be granted, the respondent/plaintiff has answered to the interrogatories though not in Form-3 Appendix-C as contemplated under the Code. Similarly, the interrogatories sought to be issued to the respondent/plaintiff is also not in consonance with Form-2 Appendix-C as stated in Order 11 Rule 4 and therefore, though there is some irregularity, the lower Court has permitted the revision petitioner to make use of the answers provided by the respondent/plaintiff during the course of trial. Unsatisfied with the said order, the present revision is filed.
8.At the time of admission, when this Court found that even in the reply to the application, the respondent/plaintiff has not provided all the answers sought for and the answers provided were not in affidavit form, a question was posed to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that whether the respondent/plaintiff is inclined to provide direct answers to query Nos.1 to 3 particularly, by way of an affidavit. As a response to the said query, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with typed set of papers furnishing all answers to the queries which he failed to furnish in the counter filed in I.A.No.297/16.
9.On a close reading of Order 11 which enables the parties to discover facts by way of interrogatory, it is seen that there are certain mandatory provision contemplated for the party who deliver interrogatories and for the party who is liable to respond the interrogatories. The whole purpose of this provision is to mitigate the litigation cost and time of the Court. The very purpose of this provision is made explicit by fixing time for delivery of interrogatories and for answering the same.
10.In the said circumstances, as pointed out by the Trial Court, there are some material violation in the procedure adopted by the revision petitioner as well as the respondent/plaintiff. Even before leave could be granted in the application and even before the interrogatory being delivered as per Form-2 Appendix-C, the respondent/plaintiff has filed counter containing certain answers, which is not sufficient.
11.Under such circumstances, Order 11 Rule 11 empowers the Court to direct the person to answer further either by affidavit or by viva voce examination. The Trial Court might have gone through the counter of the respondent/plaintiff and could have directed the respondent/plaintiff to supply the answers omitted and to provide sufficient details in his answers to interrogatories 1 and 2. Instead, the Trial Court has given liberty to the parties to make use of the reply for the interrogatories during the course of trial. However, now in the revision, the answers omitted by the respondent/plaintiff has been furnished by way of counter in the revision petition.
12.Therefore, the spirit of Order 11 is complied and under Order 11 Rule 22, the parties can make use of the answers provided in the interrogatory proceedings which though not in consonance with the procedure laid down. Since the spirit of the provision has been substantially complied and there is no further need to keep the application pending merely for academic purpose.
Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP(MD)No.2229 of 2017 is closed.
To The Additional Sub-Court, Kumbakonam..